SouthSideRyan
-
Posts
48,510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by SouthSideRyan
-
I take it you don't think we should spend money on the pen in 2014 either
-
But every season is sacred. Of course your team has no chance of making the playoffs when you don't bother to bring in any cost certainty to highly variable spots. I HATE this logic which keeps getting repeated around here. Oh what, you wanted to sign that guy and improve by 4 wins? Whoopdee doo, now you won 65 games last year. You don't build a team by looking at your zIPS projection, and if win total < 75, don't try. ETA: And when arguing the point be sure to reference the worst contract at said position as your supporting evidence. the "cost certainty" is that you'll pay $5M-$5.5M per win, which when it could easily be argued we needed to add 30 wins to be actual contenders would have been utter lunacy to chase I was told the front office didn't really do a bad job last year because they were on a ~70 win pace when they decided to trade everyone and shut down Shark, so really the team wasn't that awful. I don't think we needed to win 100 games to be "contenders"
-
Are you really arguing that if a team doesn't have a decent chance to make the playoffs they shouldn't bother putting anything respectable out there in key positions? How pissed off were you about the Fujikawa contract? What a [expletive] waste right? And don't get me started on wasting our time with Nate Schierholtz and Scott Hairston. Not to mention Scott Feldman God, we could've made even more money if we didn't bother with these guys. Don't they know our PECOTA had us at 73 wins? What the [expletive] was the point?
-
But every season is sacred. Of course your team has no chance of making the playoffs when you don't bother to bring in any cost certainty to highly variable spots. I HATE this logic which keeps getting repeated around here. Oh what, you wanted to sign that guy and improve by 4 wins? Whoopdee doo, now you won 65 games last year. You don't build a team by looking at your zIPS projection, and if win total < 75, don't try. ETA: And when arguing the point be sure to reference the worst contract at said position as your supporting evidence.
-
I love how wildly the value fluctuates within each category. Ok you guys can have either Travis Wood or Barrett Loux.
-
I'm assuming that SS is Nick Green? Ruggiano I only know because of fantasy last year.
-
By my count, 19 of the 25 men on the current active roster were either acquired or promoted to the roster by the Epstein/Hoyer regime. It's time they start getting the credit for what's happening. Promoted to?? What a weird qualifier. By my count there's only one guy who falls under that. (Castillo) You know that I think this is a hideous plan they've enacted, but you don't think the fact that we've had to turn over 2/3 of the roster in 2 years lends credence to the fact that the roster he was handed sucked?
-
MIA in 4 BOS in 7 BRK in 6 IND in 5 OKC in 4 SAS in 4 LAC in 6 DEN in 6 MIA in 5 IND in 7 OKC in 7 LAC in 7 MIA in 5 LAC in 7 MIA in 5
-
I can't imagine somebody like Derrick Rose coming to a dumb conclusion
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 4-19-13
SouthSideRyan replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Borbon has to go on the 25 man. Gonzalez was DFAd -
For me, it's more like, "If you see me in a fight with a beer, pray for the beer." I don't think you got it.
-
Giancarlo Stanton has 0 RBI
-
This is why the hotel will be crazy expensive
-
Somebody doesn't realize how good marble did against teams that missed the tourney
-
And then we have a 2 man starting rotation again to start the offseason.
-
Wood is under club control through 2016, and Villanueva has another cheap year on his contract.
-
I think it's more about how much N&G specifically has lamented Cespedes. If he's a 3 win LF under control for 4 years, why waste so much energy over him and not the host of other guys who could've been added for a similar value? My assumption is because Cespedes was the exact type of player the front office should have been throwing around their money on and they still got beaten for him.
-
Yeah, it does. But it's the only one that really bothers me. Darvish stings a bit too, but to a much lesser extent. We were right there with Cespedes (apparently) and just botched it. The Darvish scenario really doesn't bother me because of the blind bid nonsense. Cespedes...gah, it just makes me mad/sad. Things could easily be VERY different if they had pulled off that one signing. how so? ZiPS projects the guy for 3.2 wins...i'd actually like to know what exactly you see in him that's fostered the strange obsession you have And now we come back to no one player would have made a difference, so why bother.
-
CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year. Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year? He was...and our guys got him for 2 years/11.25M while CJ took a hometown discount to get 5/78 ETA - I really wanted CJ. I don't think CJ was do-able because of the quickness with which he signed with Anaheim, but my overreaching point is that KingCubs seems to want to play WAR/$ rather than play WAR. Don't tell me that a high payroll doesn't mean anything and then say well we got Maholm much cheaper, so aren't you glad we didn't sign CJ Wilson?
-
Which is what I was expecting when they came on board. I'm not going to be satisfied with an above average performance from our superteam of a front office.
-
CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year. Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year?
-
I don't understand how you can overstate the value in being able to get good players for free.
-
Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)
-
The Cubs probably won that trade, but it wasn't anywhere close to a don't do deals with them again win. Not that I think Friedman would be the type to ever act that way to begin with (even if it was the same Cubs regime)
-
Who expects things out of Wisconsin other than terrible drivers and cardiac arrest?
